4.8 Article

Top-down identification and quantification of stable isotope labeled proteins from Aspergillus flavus using online nano-flow reversed-phase liquid chromatography coupled to a LTQ-FTICR mass spectrometer

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 80, 期 13, 页码 4994-5001

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac800254z

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [T32 GM008776, 5T32GM00-8776-08] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Online liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric (LC-MS) analysis of intact proteins (i.e., top-down proteomics) is a growing area of research in the mass spectrometry community. A major advantage of top-down MS characterization of proteins is that the information of the intact protein is retained over the vastly more common bottom-up approach that uses protease-generated peptides to search genomic databases for protein identification. Concurrent to the emergence of top-down MS characterization of proteins has been the development and implementation of the stable isotope labeling of amino acids in cell culture (SILAC) method for relative quantification of proteins by LC-MS. Herein we describe the qualitative and quantitative top-down characterization of proteins derived from SILAC-labeled Aspergillus flavus using nanoflow reversed-phase liquid chromatography directly coupled to a linear ion trap Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer (nLC-LTQ-FTICR-MS). A. flavus is a toxic filamentous fungus that significantly impacts the agricultural economy and human health. SILAC labeling improved the confidence of protein identificaion, and we observed 1318 unique protein masses corresponding to 659 SILAC pairs, of which 22 were confidently identified. However, we have observed some limiting issues with regard to protein quantification using top-down MS/MS analyses of SILAC-labeled proteins. The role of SILAC labeling in the presence of competing endogenously produced amino acid residues and its impact on quantification of intact species are discussed in detail.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据